A Hypermedia Environment to Explore and Negotiate Students' Conceptions: Animation of the Solution Process of Table Salt

  • Jazlin V. Ebenezer


This article describes the characteristics and values of hypermedia for learning chemistry. It reports how a hypermedia environment was used to explore a group of 11th grade chemistry students' conceptions of table salt dissolving in water. It then presents how the hypermedia was used by students to negotiate meaning for two conceptualizations about the process of dissolving table salt in water: (a) the transformation of solid to liquid, and (b) the chemical combination of solute and solvent. This article traces the nature of students' conceptions for the solution process of table salt. The findings of this study indicate that a hypermedia environment can be used to explore, negotiate, and assess students' conceptions of the submicroscopic aspects of solution chemistry. Further, this article discusses the successes and difficulties pertaining to the learning of solution chemistry in a hypermedia environment, and presents an account of an improved version for future study.

Student conceptions phenomenography descriptive categories hypermedia animation dissolving submicroscopic ideas 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abraham, M., Williamson, V., and Westbrook, S. (1994). Across age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31: 147–165.Google Scholar
  2. Alesandrini, K. L., and Rigney, J.W. (1981). Pictorial presentation and review strategies in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 18: 465–474.Google Scholar
  3. Bar, V., and Galili, I. (1994). Stages of children's views about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education 16: 157–174.Google Scholar
  4. Bar, V., and Travis,A. S. (1991). Children's views concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28: 363–382.Google Scholar
  5. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., and Silberstein, J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable? Journal of Chemical Education 63: 64–66.Google Scholar
  6. Brook, A., Briggs, H., Bell, B., and Driver,R. (1984). Aspects of Secondary Students' Understanding of Energy: Full Report, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, Children's Learning in Science Project, The University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., and Windschltl, M. A. (1999). Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education 75: 1658–1661.Google Scholar
  8. Butts, W., and Smith, R. (1987). What do students perceive as difficult in HSC chemistry? Journal of Chemical Education 32: 45–51.Google Scholar
  9. Cosgrove, M., and Osborne, R. (1981). Physical Change (Working paper No. 26), Learning in Science Project, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  10. Di Sessa, A. (1987). The third revolution in computers and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24: 343–367.Google Scholar
  11. Dori, Y. F., and Barnea, N. (1997). In-service chemistry teachers' training: the impact of introducing computer technology on teachers' attitudes and classroom implementation. International Journal of Science Education 19: 577–592.Google Scholar
  12. Ebenezer, J. V. (1996). Salt Dissolving: A Hypermedia Software with MacroMedia Director 4.0, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.Google Scholar
  13. Ebenezer, J.V., and Connor, S. (1998). Learning to Teach Science:A Model for the Twenty First Century, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  14. Ebenezer, J., and Erickson, G. (1996). Chemistry students' conceptions of solubility:Aphenomenography. Science Education 80: 181–201.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, D., and Mercer, N. (1987). Common Knowledge: The Development of Understanding in the Classroom, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  16. Erickson, G. (1992). Some suggestions for running an interactive discussion. [SI]2 Network Newsletter 5: 1.Google Scholar
  17. Gabel,D. L. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education 70: 193–194.Google Scholar
  18. Gabel, D. L. (1994). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., and Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education 64: 695–697.Google Scholar
  20. Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., and Hackling, M. (1995). Students' alternative conceptions in chemistry: a review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education 25: 69–95.Google Scholar
  23. Garnett, P. J, and Treagust,D. F. (1992a). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation-reduction equations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29: 121–142.Google Scholar
  24. Garnett, P. J, and Treagust, D. F. (1992b). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic dells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29: 1079–1099.Google Scholar
  25. Gitmoer, D. H., and Duschl, R. A. (1998). Emerging issues and practice in science assessment. In Fraser, B., and Tobin, K. (Eds.), International Handbook of Research in Science Teaching, Kluwer Publications, The Netherlands, pp. 791–810.Google Scholar
  26. Greenbowe, T. J. (1994). An interactive multimedia software program for exploring electrochemical cells. Journal of Chemical Education 71: 555–557.Google Scholar
  27. Hennessy, S., Twigger, D., Driver, R., O's hea, T., O'Malley, C. E., Byard, M., Draper, S., Hartley, R., Mohamed, R., and Scanlon, E. (1993). Changing learners' understandings using a computer-augmented curriculum for mechanics. A paper presented at the 3rd international conference on Misconceptions in Mathematics and Science, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Iverson, B. L. (1995). Perspectives on Pedagogy, Project Kaleidoscope.Google Scholar
  29. Johnstone, A.H. (1991).Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they see. Journal of Computer Assisted learning 7: 75–83.Google Scholar
  30. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NewJersey.Google Scholar
  31. Langley, D., Ronen, M., and Eylon, B. (1997). Light propogation and visual patterns: preinstruction learners' conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34: 399–424.Google Scholar
  32. Lijnse, P., Licht, P., de Vos, W., and Waarlo, A. L. (Eds.). (1990). Relating Macroscopic Phenomena to Microscopic Particles: A Central Problem in Secondary Science Education, Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Press, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  33. Linder, C. J., and Erickson,G. L. (1989). Astudy of tertiary physics students' conceptualizations of sound. International Journal of Science Education 11: 491–501.Google Scholar
  34. Marchionini, G. (1988). Hypermedia and learning: freedom and chaos. Educational Technology 28: 8–12.Google Scholar
  35. Marsh, E. J., and Kumar, D. D. (1992). Hypermedia: a conceptual framework for science education and review of scientific findings. Journal of Educational Media and Hypermedia 1: 25–37.Google Scholar
  36. Mcintosh,W. J. (1986). The effect of imagery generation on science rule learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23: 1–9.Google Scholar
  37. Noh, T., and Scharmann, L. C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34: 199–217.Google Scholar
  38. Novick, S., and Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: an interview study. Science Education 63: 273–281.Google Scholar
  39. O'Neil, J. (1995). On technology schools: a conversation with Chris Dede. Educational Leadership October: 6–12.Google Scholar
  40. Rénström, L. (1988). Conceptions of matter:Aphenomenographic approach, Published doctoral dissertation, Gothenburg University Press, Sweden.Google Scholar
  41. Rénström, L., Andersson, B., and Marton, F. (1990). Students' conceptions of matter. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 555–569.Google Scholar
  42. Ronen, M., Eylon, B., Rivlin, O., and Ganiel, U. (1993). Designing and using an open interface for instruction in geometrical optics. Computers & Education 20: 299–309.Google Scholar
  43. Ronen, M., and Rivlin, O. (1995). RAY: Users Guide, Physics Academic Software, North Carolina University, Raleigh.Google Scholar
  44. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., and Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher 20: 2–9.Google Scholar
  45. Sanger, M. J., and Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34: 377–398.Google Scholar
  46. Tek, G. (1994). Visual Physics Optics Simulation [Computer software], G.Tek Technologies, Israel.Google Scholar
  47. Tullberg, A., Strömdahl, H., and Lybeck, L. (1994). Students' conception of 1 mol and educators' conceptions of how they teach “the mole”. International Journal of Science Education 16: 145–156.Google Scholar
  48. Twigger, D., Byard, M., Draper, S., Driver, R., Hartley, R., Henessy, S., Mallen, C., Mohamed, R., O'Malley, C. E., O's hea, T., and Scanlon, E. (1991). The conceptual change in science project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 7: 144–155.Google Scholar
  49. Twigger, D., Byard, M., Driver, R., Draper, S., Henessy, S., Mohamed, R., O'Malley, C. E., O's hea, T., and Scanlon, E. (1994). The conception of force and motion of students aged between 10 and 15 years: An interview study designed to guide instruction. International Journal of Science Education 16: 215–229.Google Scholar
  50. White,R. T. (1988). Learning science. Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford.Google Scholar
  51. White, B., and Horwitz, P. (1988). Computer microworlds and conceptual change: A new appraoch to science education. In Ramsden, P. (Ed.), Improving Learning New Perspectives, Kogan Page Ltd., Great Britain.Google Scholar
  52. Williamson, V. M., and Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32: 521–534.Google Scholar
  53. Winn, W. (1992). A constructive critique of the assumptions of instructional design. In Duffy, T. M., and Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ, pp. 189–212.Google Scholar
  54. Zietsman, A. I., and Hewson, P. W. (1986). Effects of instruction using microcomputer simulations and cognitive change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23: 27–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jazlin V. Ebenezer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Faculty of EducationThe University of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations